Premarital Sex

[anon67455021]

<p>^ Truth
10char</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

And you still haven’t answered my objections #1, #2, and #4.

</p>

<p>Which are those</p>

<p>

Evolution - Premarital sex. What happened to the thread?

</p>

<p>It evolved</p>

[jerrry4445]

<p>quite amazing how a debate can deviate from the main topic. If I remember reading, one CCer was mentioning biology to support his/her stance on premarital sex, and eventually the topic of biology became more specific to evolution.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Seriously, is it impossible to just agree to disagree? Now, I’m a big fan of debate. But when it comes to things that are a core part of someone’s religious beliefs, it’s best to just respect them.

</p>

<p>Evolution (or the lack thereof) isn’t a core part of my religious beliefs. I disbelieve it because I am not satisfied with the evidence, not because god told me it was false.</p>

<p>I think we pretty much agreed to disagree from the get-go. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t still good for us all to have our theories tested against others’.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

The artsy pictures showing evolution are that way because no one wants to see a ten thousand page book filled with pictures of each generation of a certain species with each minute difference. The textbook artists assume that people will be able to understand that fish didn’t suddenly grow legs, but instead, it was a gradual process.

</p>

<p>I’m sure they have the 10,000 gradual changes on file in their warehouses, right? </p>

<p>

Science is not infallible. Scientists try to disprove it everyday. However, for this specific theory, there happens to be a whole lot of evidence. Evidence that I’m assuming you haven’t closely looked at or examined.

</p>

<p>You assume incorrectly. The evidence for and against evolution has been an interest for me for a long time.</p>

<p>

I understand where you’re coming from though. Evolution isn’t taught very thoroughly in schools, and I would not expect more from homeschools either. So what is your theory then?

</p>

<p>I believe I am as well or better acquainted with the theory of evolution as the vast majority of highschool students. As for my theory… I already stated it:</p>

<p>

@me

My alternative hypothesis:</p>

<p>At some point in the past a population of different species existed, which contained all alleles currently present in all species in the world. Through natural selection, speciation has occured, splitting the original relatively small number of homogenous species into the vast number of diversified species we have today.

</p>

<p>In short, evolution only goes downward and outward. Never upward.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>@TCBH: When meadow first asked me why I didn’t believe in evolution, I posted a few of my reasons [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064752380-post435.html]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064752380-post435.html]here[/url</a>].</p>

[anon67455021]

<p>Evolution has no ultimate goal but to adapt surroundings. How is there no evidence? What about viruses?</p>

<p>PS. AP EURO FINAL TOMMOROW AAIUGHAUGHUAHGA!!!</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>Well we’ve already addressed the first two issues. Mutations occur - that much is undeniable. The idea that large scale changes must occur at once lest they disappear is completely unfounded. The idea that dating methods are a crapshoot is again unfounded.</p>

<p>The idea that many organisms are perfect is also a misconception. The fact that some specific cases are more interesting doesn’t invalidate the theory.</p>

[applicannot]

<p>

It is central to my theory.

</p>

<p>Actually you have an untested hypothesis. Natural Selection is a theory.</p>

<p>

Can you state some examples? I’ve seen a lot of “family trees” and “evolutionary timelines” and it is striking how the actual changes seem so often to happen in the “artist’s rendering” parts, while the actual creatures seem to show fully formed features. Where are the “sceathers”, halfway between feathers and scales?

</p>

<p>I’ll link a few examples, but first you have to understand that a) fossils form under only very specific conditions and b) we have many fossils yet to find (or so archeological history seems to say). </p>

<p>But, here are a few fossils of human evolution:
[Human</a> evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Human evolution - Wikipedia”>Human evolution - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Here we have horses:
[Horse</a> Evolution Over 55 Million Years](<a href=“http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm]Horse”>http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm)</p>

<p>We don’t have all the answers. That’s the point of science: we don’t know all the answers and we don’t claim to know them all. There is always something new to learn.</p>

<p>

^ I dispute that fact. I belive the system of dating fossils is highly flawed.

</p>

<p>That may be your belief, but a basic chemistry class would refute it. Carbon-14 dating is very reliable; it really breaks down to math and a little chemical understanding. Many introductory chemistry classes actually do labs with rudimentary carbon dating. I’m 100% certain the system is flawed, but I’d hardly say “highly flawed.”</p>

<p>

And what transitional fossils? Like I said before, the many “transitional fossils” I’ve seen all appear on examination to be strikingly lacking in “half-developed” traits.

</p>

<p>I don’t understand what you mean by “half-developed.” You’re not going to find a bird with half a wing. I think you are confusing Darwin with Lamarck.</p>

<p>

And before you worship the infallibility of science, look up some history.

</p>

<p>No one thinks science is infallible. That’s the point of science: we’re growing an evr-changing body of knowledge. Each year (these days, each minute) we develop new technology that helps us see what we couldn’t before. On the other hand, before you worship the infallibility of Christianity, look up some history.</p>

<p>

Evolution (or the lack thereof) isn’t a core part of my religious beliefs. I disbelieve it because I am not satisfied with the evidence, not because god told me it was false.</p>

<p>I think we pretty much agreed to disagree from the get-go. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t still good for us all to have our theories tested against others’.

</p>

<p>Wait - we have a theory (a scientific concept reinforced by huge bodies of evidence). You have a hypothesis (a concept gleaned from observation and, in your case, opinion). This is generally a lesser-understood concept, but in science, theories aren’t things to be reckoned with. They are all but proven - which, as science itself claims to be infallible, isn’t usually done. Let me remind you of some other popular theories:</p>

<p>The Cell Theory
The Atom Theory
Thermodynamics</p>

<p>

I’m sure they have the 10,000 gradual changes on file in their warehouses, right?

</p>

<p>Thousands, absolutely. Probably hundreds of thousands. Do they have every change on file? Of course not. There aren’t always going to be fossils (which are hard to make). Many fossils will never be found or will be destroyed before they are properly excavated. </p>

<p>

I believe I am as well or better acquainted with the theory of evolution as the vast majority of highschool students.

</p>

<p>Considering evolution is generally poorly taught given Christian fundamental backlash, I don’t disagree with you. But saying you have a better understanding than the average high schooler doesn’t mean you have much understanding at all. None of us are experts.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Actually you have an untested hypothesis. Natural Selection is a theory.

</p>

<p>Technically, I have a belief in the theory of genetics, and the hypothesis that the theory of evolution is not supported by the theory of genetics, among other things.</p>

<p>

I’ll link a few examples, but first you have to understand that a) fossils form under only very specific conditions and b) we have many fossils yet to find (or so archeological history seems to say).</p>

<p>We don’t have all the answers. That’s the point of science: we don’t know all the answers and we don’t claim to know them all. There is always something new to learn.

</p>

<p>In other words, we don’t have much evidence for evolution right now, but we expect to find some in the future. I’ll grant that. If the evidence does turn up, I’ll view the theory much more favorably.</p>

<p>As for those links, I’ve read them. There’s nothing there that is better explained by evolution than by my hypothesis.</p>

<p>

That may be your belief, but a basic chemistry class would refute it. Carbon-14 dating is very reliable; it really breaks down to math and a little chemical understanding. Many introductory chemistry classes actually do labs with rudimentary carbon dating. I’m 100% certain the system is flawed, but I’d hardly say “highly flawed.”

</p>

<p>Do you really think they use Carbon dating to date fossils relevant to evolution?</p>

<p>[They</a> don’t](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating]They”>Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>

I don’t understand what you mean by “half-developed.” You’re not going to find a bird with half a wing. I think you are confusing Darwin with Lamarck.

</p>

<p>Do you think a dinosaur laid an egg and a bird with fully formed feathers and wings hatched out? If that didn’t happen, then it developed by stages, in which case yes, there would have had to be a bird with things that were half-feather, half-scale, and things that were half-wing, half-arm.</p>

<p>

Wait - we have a theory (a scientific concept reinforced by huge bodies of evidence). You have a hypothesis (a concept gleaned from observation and, in your case, opinion). This is generally a lesser-understood concept, but in science, theories aren’t things to be reckoned with. They are all but proven - which, as science itself claims to be infallible, isn’t usually done. Let me remind you of some other popular theories:</p>

<p>The Cell Theory
The Atom Theory
Thermodynamics

</p>

<p>My argument here, if you hadn’t noticed, is that the current Theory of evolution is false. Theories turn out to be false all the time. For instance:</p>

<p>The Geocentric Theory
The Theory of Spontaneous Generation
The “Plum-Pudding” Atomic Theory</p>

<p>

Thousands, absolutely. Probably hundreds of thousands. Do they have every change on file? Of course not. There aren’t always going to be fossils (which are hard to make). Many fossils will never be found or will be destroyed before they are properly excavated.

</p>

<p>Do you really believe that the blank spaces on the charts are really just blank “to avoid confusion”? What we have is in fact:</p>

<p>A bunch of fossils from “stage” 1</p>

<p>nothing</p>

<p>A bunch of fossils from “stage” 2</p>

<p>nothing</p>

<p>A bunch of fossils from “stage” 3</p>

<p>etc.</p>

<p>Correct me if I’m wrong.</p>

<p>

Considering evolution is generally poorly taught given Christian fundamental backlash, I don’t disagree with you. But saying you have a better understanding than the average high schooler doesn’t mean you have much understanding at all. None of us are experts.

</p>

<p>I grant that, though I might differ somewhat on the “Christian fundamental backlash” part. So with that understood, can you refrain from bringing up “you must be an uneducated homeschooler” from now on?</p>

[geekorathletic]

<p>What’s the point of arguing like this? You all have already hijacked the thread, and none of you are going to just suddenly change your viewpoints just because of this thread.</p>

[applicannot]

<p>

Technically, I have a belief in the theory of genetics, and the hypothesis that the theory of evolution is not supported by the theory of genetics, among other things.

</p>

<p>Okay.</p>

<p>

In other words, we don’t have much evidence for evolution right now, but we expect to find some in the future. I’ll grant that. If the evidence does turn up, I’ll view the theory much more favorably.

</p>

<p>No. Right now we have a huge body of evidence for natural selection right now, not unlike we have a huge body of evidence for cells, atoms, and germs. That does not mean we know all of the answers, or that we have collected all possible evidence, by any means.</p>

<p>

Do you think a dinosaur laid an egg and a bird with fully formed feathers and wings hatched out? If that didn’t happen, then it developed by stages, in which case yes, there would have had to be a bird with things that were half-feather, half-scale, and things that were half-wing, half-arm.

</p>

<p>I think what you mean is that there would be a creature with an incomplete feather covering system. Or, that there would be animals with imperfect wings or arms. We do have fossils for those animals. That’s not, however, always going to be the case. You don’t have to see gravity to know it’s there. No matter how much evidence we amass for gravity, there are always going to be missing pieces. Despite the body of evidence we have for natural selection, it’s never going to be perfect. But to say we don’t have substantial evidence for natural selection is to be uninformed.</p>

<p>“Half” things aren’t going to exist very often, and certainly not for very long. Take bacteria for example. Put a lot of bacteria in a petri dish and expose the bacteria to an antibiotic. Some of them will be antiobiotic-resistant and will live. Then, the next population of bacteria will all be or will mostly be antibiotic-resistant. You don’t have bacteria that are “half” resistant to antiobiotics.</p>

<p>

My argument here, if you hadn’t noticed, is that the current Theory of evolution is false. Theories turn out to be false all the time. For instance:</p>

<p>The Geocentric Theory
The Theory of Spontaneous Generation
The “Plum-Pudding” Atomic Theory

</p>

<p>I agree, science isn’t perfect. However, to say that theories turn out to be wrong “all the time” is false. A theory is a concept with a large body of evidence surrounding it. Yes, they can turn out to be false, and have in the past. This does not mean that they are always false. Why do we have scientific theories but very few scientific laws? We are welcome to bodies of evidence that disprove certain theories. This rarely happens, and certainly isn’t happening in the intelligent design community. When the intelligent design or creation or whatever community amasses the same amount of evidence as natural selection, then it would be reasonable to consider intelligent design (or any other theory of evolution) a possibility.</p>

<p>

Do you really think they use Carbon dating to date fossils relevant to evolution?

</p>

<p>Yes, among many other tools.
[Accuracy</a> of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)](<a href=“http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]Accuracy”>http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html)</p>

<p>

Do you really believe that the blank spaces on the charts are really just blank “to avoid confusion”? What we have is in fact:

</p>

<p>So because we don’t immediately have all of the information, our premise is false? We are experiencing new discoveries every day. Wikipedia certainly isn’t going to list every fossil ever found. For example, we just found another piece of the puzzle: [New</a> Hominid Species, Au. Sediba, Discovered in South Africa - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/science/09fossil.html]New”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/science/09fossil.html)</p>

<p>

So with that understood, can you refrain from bringing up “you must be an uneducated homeschooler” from now on?

</p>

<p>Can you prove that you actually know what you’re talking about?</p>

<p>

What’s the point of arguing like this? You all have already hijacked the thread, and none of you are going to just suddenly change your viewpoints just because of this thread.

</p>

<p>It’s part of my life’s goal to clear up misconceptions surrounding certain issues. I’d never expect MosbyMarion to change his mind. I do expect him to get the concepts straight. It’s one thing to claim to not “believe” in natural selection. It’s another to throw out ideas that fossil dating is a “crapshoot” and that there’s no evidence for natural selection.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

What’s the point of arguing like this? You all have already hijacked the thread, and none of you are going to just suddenly change your viewpoints just because of this thread.

</p>

<p>I have two goals:</p>

<p>1: Test my own worldview against others in order to refine it and hammer out anything that isn’t true.</p>

<p>2: Hopefully make the others think about their own worldviews, rather than just accept what the intelligentsia tells them at face value.</p>

[geekorathletic]

<p>Unfortunately, if anything would have happened, it would have happened many pages ago. Yet you two are still arguing.</p>

[Tents]

<p>You still have some terrible misconceptions about the theories. I don’t see how you’re even making an effort to hammer out anything that isn’t true.</p>

<p>Like I said, you have such terrible misconceptions, your credibility is non-existent to me. So far you’ve only made me appreciate my AP Bio class more rather than prompting me to think about my own world views. You are also very arrogant to denounce years of hard work and research made for our benefit.</p>

<p>But then again, that attitude of yours can be put to use. Perhaps you’ll find something very useful if you go into the research field.</p>

<p>What are you right now? Like a freshman in high school?</p>

[Tents]

<p>Also, that is if you go into the research field with at least a decent background knowledge of what you’re going to be researching.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

It’s part of my life’s goal to clear up misconceptions surrounding certain issues. I’d never expect MosbyMarion to change his mind. I do expect him to get the concepts straight. It’s one thing to claim to not “believe” in natural selection. It’s another to throw out ideas that fossil dating is a “crapshoot” and that there’s no evidence for natural selection.

</p>

<p>Once and for all, I DO NOT SAY THAT NATURAL SELECTION IS FALSE.</p>

<p>In fact, I say that it is true. It is observeable and repeatable, makes logical sense, and fits perfectly with my understanding of the universe.</p>

<p>Let me make the distinction VERY clear:</p>

<p>Natural selection: The process in nature by which, according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated. (supported by evidence and believed to be true by me)</p>

<p>Evolution according to people like you: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form, involving the emergence of entirely new traits not previously existing within the genome. (not supported by the evidence, and not believed by me)</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Unfortunately, if anything would have happened, it would have happened many pages ago. Yet you two are still arguing.

</p>

<p>Things are happening. I’ve learned at least a few new things so far.</p>

[geekorathletic]

<p>You know what I noticed about you two arguing? You two are asking each other the same rhetorical questions over and over again just in different wording (I don’t mean literally, I mean the goal each questions are aimed towards). So the end result? You two keep chasing each other around and around a circle and get nowhere. </p>

<p>You two aren’t 5-year-old kids. This has got to stop sooner or later.</p>

[applicannot]

<p>

Evolution according to people like you: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form, involving the emergence of entirely new traits not previously existing within the genome. (not supported by the evidence, and not believed by me)

</p>

<p>Huh? I don’t know who on this thread believes this, but it is debunked immediately within any biology class and with any study of natural selection. This, I believe, is not natural selection but Lamarck’s idea. I disagree slightly with the traits part, because that does play into natural selection, but otherwise you are very confused if you think I am arguing for Lamarck.</p>